arrow The Times arrow 1821 - 1830 arrow Jul 04 1826 Court of Chancery, Lancaster v. Atkinson
Jul 04 1826 Court of Chancery, Lancaster v. Atkinson Print E-mail
The Times, Tuesday, Jul 04, 1826; pg. 3; Issue 13010; col D



                                        LAW REPORT.
                                          -------------
               COURT OF CHANCERY, MONDAY, JULY 3.

                            LANCASTER V. ATKINSON.

This was an appeal lodged by the defendant against an order made by the
Vice-Chancellor on hearing the cause, in which he directed an issue.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, after having heard the arguments on both sides, said, that
this was not only a cause of considerable difficulty, owing to the
contradictions which the parties gave to each other's statements, but also very
unpleasant from the charges which the plaintiff and defendant had introduced
into the pleadings against each other. They were sisters, and their father, it
appeared, had died, leaving a will, by which he bequeathed his property to be
equally divided between them. The bill of the plaintiff charged the defendant
with having purloined from an escritoir 818 guineas, immediately after the
decease of the testator, and claimed to be entitled to an equal moiety of that
sum. The answer of the defendant charged the plaintiff with having committed
extensive peculations on the property of the testator during his life, and
required an account of the monies which her sister had become possessed of by
these means. The Vice-Chancellor, when the cause was before him, directed an
issue at law for the purpose of trying whether the 818 guineas were the property
of the testator at the time of his death. This order, the Lord Chancellor now
said, was quite correct as far as it went: but in order to reach the whole
extent which the justice of the case required, it must be carried still farther.
The defendant had as good a right to an inquiry into the amount of money which
her sister had improperly possessed herself of during their father's life-time,
as the plaintiff had to require of her share of the gold taken out of the
escritoir. He would therefore direct an extended issue of this nature, and would
take upon himself the task of penning the terms of the order, which he would
hand down to-morrow.

 
< Prev   Next >